New here? Get 15% off your first order.See how it works

Nursing questions
Discussion postGroup counseling

DQ 1 :Which of the therapeutic forces discussed in this week’s readings do you think are the most important for successful group outcomes?

Pick from the readings, do not list all eleven, and take the worked example seriously: the prompt tells addictions students to make it a substance use example, which is where the specificity has to land.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 22, 2026

01

Choosing among the therapeutic factors, not listing them

The verb is choose, and the most common failure is to summarise the whole list instead. The therapeutic factors from the week's reading run to about eleven, including universality, instillation of hope, imparting information, altruism, group cohesiveness, interpersonal learning, the corrective recapitulation of the family group, imitative behaviour, catharsis, existential factors and the development of socialising technique. Naming all of them uses your word count and answers a different question. Pick two or three, and defend the choice with a reason that distinguishes them from the ones you left out. Cohesiveness is the strongest candidate for a defensible pick, because the literature treats it as the group analogue of the therapeutic alliance and as a condition for the other factors rather than one factor among them. Interpersonal learning is the other defensible pick, because it is the factor only a group can supply and an individual session structurally cannot.

The second half is where the post becomes yours rather than generic. The prompt explicitly ties the example to your program track and says that addictions students should make it a substance use example, so a general statement about applying this in future practice ignores an instruction written into the question. Write the example concretely: a specific group, a specific moment, and the counsellor behaviour that would make the factor available. Universality in an early recovery group means the member who believes their relapse history is uniquely shameful hears two others describe the same pattern in the first session, and that happens because you structured the check in to make it possible. Say what you would do, not what you hope will occur, because the difference between those two sentences is the difference between a reflection and a plan. One is scored as insight and the other is scored as competence.

Likely learning objectives

  • Select among group therapeutic factors and defend the selection.
  • Explain cohesiveness as a condition for other factors rather than a parallel one.
  • Translate a chosen factor into a specific counsellor behaviour.
  • Match the worked example to your own program track as instructed.

Assignment instructions

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

PCN 520 Grand Canyon Week 2 Discussion 1 Latest July 2016 DQ 1 :Which of the therapeutic forces discussed in this week’s readings do you think are the most important for successful group outcomes? Which of the therapeutic forces discussed in this week’s readings do you think are the most important for successful group outcomes? Explain and give examples of how you can incorporate this knowledge into your future counseling practice. For example, if you are in the addictions program, your example should be related to substance use disorders. PCN 520 Grand Canyon Week 2 Discussion 1 Latest July 2016

Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. Grading Rubric Guidelines Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Scholarliness Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions. Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion. Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions. Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Application of Course Knowledge – Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources; Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life. Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources. Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson. Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post. Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life Performance Category 5 4 3 2 0 Interactive Dialogue Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days. (5 points possible per graded thread) Exceeds minimum post requirements Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days. Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days Replies to a question posed by a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days. The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty Has only one post for the week Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments Does not post to the thread No connections are made to the topic Minus 1 Point Minus 2 Point Minus 3 Point Minus 4 Point Minus 5 Point Grammar, Syntax, APA Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted. Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition 2-3 errors in APA format. Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication. 4-5 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is somewhat focused. 6-7 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand. 8-10 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand. Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format. Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style does not facilitate communication. The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor 0 points lost -5 points lost Total Participation Requirements per discussion thread The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days Early Participation Requirement per discussion thread The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01Two or three named therapeutic factors, not the full list.
  2. 02A reason for choosing those over the ones excluded.
  3. 03A specific group and moment for the example.
  4. 04A counsellor behaviour that makes the factor available.
  5. 05An example matched to your program track, substance use if you are in addictions.
03

The factors you pick, then the worked track example

01

The factors you chose

Name two or three therapeutic factors and define each in the reading's own terms.

What the assessor is likely looking for

A definition drawn from the assigned framework rather than paraphrased loosely.

02

Why these and not the others

Defend the selection against the factors you left out.

What the assessor is likely looking for

An explicit contrast with an excluded factor.

03

Cohesiveness as a precondition

Argue that cohesion enables the other factors rather than sitting beside them.

What the assessor is likely looking for

Cohesion linked to the alliance literature rather than described as warmth.

04

The worked example

Describe a specific group, moment and counsellor behaviour that makes the factor available.

What the assessor is likely looking for

A counsellor action, stated in the first person and in the future tense.

05

Matching it to your track

Tie the example to your specialisation as the prompt instructs.

What the assessor is likely looking for

A track-specific setting, such as substance use treatment for addictions students.

04

Where group therapeutic factors are documented

Recommended databases

  • NCBI Bookshelf
  • SAMHSA publications
  • APA
  • GCU Library

Search sequence

  1. 1.Confirm the list of therapeutic factors from the assigned reading before choosing.
  2. 2.Find evidence linking group cohesion to outcome.
  3. 3.Look for a group treatment source in your own track for the example.
  4. 4.Note one study that measures a factor rather than describing it.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Group Therapy

StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023

Review before citing

Group therapy mechanisms, for definitions of the factors in clinical terms.

Keys to great group therapy

Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2019

Review before citing

Practitioner accounts of what makes groups effective, including cohesion.

Time-Limited Group Therapy

Brief Interventions and Brief Therapies for Substance Abuse, Treatment Improvement Protocol 34, NCBI Bookshelf · 1999

Review before citing

Time-limited group work, for how factors operate under a fixed number of sessions.

06

Before you post to the Week 2 forum

Common mistakes

  • Summarising all eleven factors instead of choosing among them.
  • Defining cohesiveness without saying why it ranks above the others.
  • Giving an example with no setting, no moment and no counsellor action.
  • Ignoring the track instruction written into the prompt.
  • Describing what you hope happens rather than what you would do.

Submission checklist

  • Have you chosen a small number of factors and said why?
  • Is the reason for excluding the others stated?
  • Does your example name a group, a moment and an action?
  • Is the example matched to your program track?
  • Are your claims about group outcomes sourced?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Maren Caldwell

MSN, RN, CNE

Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation

Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.

Reviewed by

Dr. Tessa Redmond

DNP, RN, CNE

Evidence-based practice and clinical education

Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order